Weapons Loud outs

I am struggling choosing load outs from the high number of combinations. IRL who determines the load out for a mission? Does the pilot have input to that? I can see a pilot being in a situation in which he/she says, "Damn, I wish I had XYZ..."

Also with all of the precision weapons available, does the Navy actually use dumb bombs anymore? If so why?

So to my point. Do you have a favorite load out for the particular mission you are flying? If you could list a mission type here ie. CAP, CAS, SEAD, et el. and the load out you like to fly for that particular mission, I'd appreciate it.

Regards,

Probably mostly mission planners in RL. The "pick order" for the ordnance is probably made long before the pilot ever gets their brief on the mission.

Dumb bombs are WAAAAAAAAAY cheaper and can be deployed quite rapidly. Turn in CCIP on target, pickle, instead of having to scan on the pod.

Wiki: MK-82 Unit cost $2,082.50 vs

GBU-12 (Laser guided version) Unit cost US $21,896

CAP you'll want 2-3 fuel tanks for loiter time over the area then amraams and or sparrows (again cost comparison in RL).

CAS - personal preference, I like GBU12 with the laser pod, needs laze to impact though (lightning) or the GBU38 (GPS guided, fire and forget with the pod).

Also, depending on mission, may want some rockets for when your JTAC (if there is one) calls in danger close suppression.

SEAD use AGM88 anti radar missiles.

Almost always have sidewinders on wings and sparrows or amraams on underbody (can't remember correct term) stations. CAS and SEAD you may need/want tanks as well... depends on distance, tanker availability, etc.

For specific missions this may change as well, such as JDAM's with PP (pre planned) targets. Everyone has your concerns... we just get comfortable with some weapons as opposed to others.

If you want to get a feel for the RL process for this you can look at Joint Publication 3-30, Joint Air Operations. The steps followed for weaponeering are:

1. Target Development

2. Weaponeering

3. Allocation

4. ATO Development/Dissemination

5. Execution

Once Intel/Ops (J2/J3) have developed a target and determined it should be struck, it is passed to a weaponeering team who determine what the ordnance options are to effectively destroy the target. They'll look at critical nodes, etc. and determine what ways a target can be destroyed and look at collateral damage, level of effort, etc. Once they're done, the target is passed to the Master Air Attack Planning team, who then figure out how to actually put that ordnance on target. They'll consider things like enemy threat, availability of friendly aircraft (and escorts), support aircraft, and ordnance levels at bases. For example, JASSM might not be available in sufficient quantity in theater, but if a target is really important you can fly a bomber in from Dyess to hit the target (with much larger tanker requirements). This can get complex really quickly.

Once they're finished with it, it will be published in the daily Air Tasking Order. Individual units will be tasked to do specific things, and each unit will pull their applicable information. This will tell them what their targets are, time-on-targets, support assets, etc. It would then be up to the unit planners to determine final ordnance selection and get that uploaded, do specific flight planning, etc. Pilots would have input into this, but will have to conform with what is published in the ATO. If there's a serious problem, they'd need to go back to the ATO team to get it changed.

Once all this is done, the mission gets flown. This obviously happens in a somewhat abridged fashion for any kind of dynamic targeting, but that's why if you look at any pictures from recent ops you'll see fighters carrying a variety of ordnance (so they have flexibility airborne).

Dumb bombs are WAAAAAAAAAY cheaper and can be deployed quite rapidly. Turn in CCIP on target, pickle, instead of having to scan on the pod.

Wiki: MK-82 Unit cost $2,082.50 vs

GBU-12 (Laser guided version) Unit cost US $21,896

Sure, they're cheaper, but they're also less effective. If a dumb bomb is only effective 5% of the time (it's rate in Vietnam), it costs just as much an LGB that is 50% effective, and requires more sorties into and out of a target area than the PGM. There's a reason the USAF is pretty much a 100% PGM force these days.

"Sure, they're cheaper, but they're also less effective. If a dumb bomb is only effective 5% of the time (it's rate in Vietnam)...."

Is Vietnam a good benchmark? I don't know. Seems the jungle would make bombing pretty ineffective with either FF or guided bombs. How does that 5% in Nam compare to middle east FF bombing, do you know? And then Napalm, seems to me dropped in close quarters it would be pretty effective! Just curious.

"Sure, they're cheaper, but they're also less effective. If a dumb bomb is only effective 5% of the time (it's rate in Vietnam)...."

 

Is Vietnam a good benchmark? I don't know. Seems the jungle would make bombing pretty ineffective with either FF or guided bombs. How does that 5% in Nam compare to middle east FF bombing, do you know? And then Napalm, seems to me dropped in close quarters it would be pretty effective! Just curious.

From the Gulf War Air Power Survey:

Medium- and high-altitude bombing with unguided munitions posed problems, even with digital “smart platforms.” First, the visual bombing pipper was 2 milliradians wide. At a slant range of 20,000 feet, typical for high-angle dive deliveries, the pipper blanked out an area on the ground 40 feet across, often hiding the target. To the resulting errors must be added bomb dispersion errors. For example, the MK-84 GP weapon dispersion was 5-6 milliradians.”’ The result of both of these kinds of errors was a worst-case 160-foot miss distance, even if the pilot did everything right and the system worked perfectly. Furthermore, aircraft systems played a key role in weapon delivery accuracy. For example, if the aircraft system altitude had a 200-foot error, the bomb could have hit 120 feet from the intended target, under the same circumstances as described above. Using “smart platforms” to deliver “dumb” bombs against point targets smaller than the circular error probable (CEP)”* may well require redundant targeting.183 Only weapons (e.g., cluster bomb units) with footprints larger than the CEP, could expect to hit such point targets in one shot, and their explosive effect may not be sufficient or of proper type to achieve the necessary functional destruction required for tactical effectiveness.

 

During Desert Storm, the effects of these basic sources of inaccuracy were magnified by preconflict training. ’Generally speaking, training was focused on a NATO Central Region conflict and emphasized low-altitude tactics. In addition, weapons systems, aircraft, and munitions had been designed to complement this thinking. By contrast, the tactical realities of Iraqi defenses in Desert Storm required Coalition aircraft to drop a wide variety of “dumb” bombs from medium and high altitudes. The Gulf War thus was a useful test case for highlighting the differences between low- and medium-altitude bombing accuracy and demonstrated a need for a more accurate way to deliver unguided ordnance from

medium altitude.

So obviously, in DCS, the acceptable level of risk is extreme all the time, so you can fly low-altitude and increase the accuracy of your dumb bombs. But operational realities of the last 30+ years have pretty much driven all Western air forces to PGM only.

Yes. We all known the current dcs air environment is mostly clown shoes in this regaard especially online. I personally hope with the dynamic campaign we will have some targets worth hitting with real worls availibilty considerations